A Boston College sports blog capturing the highs and lows of being a BC fan living 1,000 miles from Chestnut Hill.

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Where are the 5th Year transfers?

5th Year Transfers have been critical to Steve Addazio's first two season at BC. With practices for next season only weeks away, it looks like incoming 5th Years won't be as impactful as they were during Addazio's first two campaigns.

Currently there are no signs of any 5th Years transfers enrolled. Classes started this week and four freshmen are now enrolled and will be able to practice this spring. Any potential 5th Year could still join the spring practice as long as they enroll in BC before the add/drop period. Even though they have degrees from other universities, potential new players still need to be active and enrolled at BC to be eligible.

If no one pops up in the next week or two that doesn't mean BC won't use 5th years again this season. There will be another batch of players available in May (upon completion of their undergraduate degrees) and a few more who will be ready after a session of summer school.

If Addazio comes up empty on transfers, I still expect him to use nearly every scholarship available. If transfers don't come through that could mean one more potential under the radar recruit or rewarding a borderline case for a 5th year among current BC seniors.

The 5th year policy has been a great resource for Addazio to plug holes and add depth to the roster he inherited. As the team transitions to his players, he might not feel as compelled to find these extra guys. But I still think something will pop before the season starts. It is just a matter of when.

At the Larchmont event before Christmas Addazio seemed to indicate that 5th year transfers would be less and less a part of the team moving forward. The impression I got was that this would be the trend starting this season.

is rewarding a borderline case for a 5th year really a "good use" of a scholarship? what i mean by that is we'd be better off either bringing in a freshman or finding a 5th year transfer. would there by any reason why you wouldn't offer the 5th years or non-scholarship players schollies if there were unused ones?

what was the final scholarship count last year of guys that were legitimate scholarship players? we should eventually have a team full of them? i remember reading on this board that there were like 20+ unused scholarships.

Off topic - I noticed the add on the BC sports site for the Discover Alaska cruise with Doug Flutie. Anybody sign up for that? Might lead to some interesting extensions such as a Discover San Diego Tour with Jared Dudley or a Discover the Outer Banks Tour with Luke Keuchly. Personally, these would probably be too expensive for me. Will have to wait for the heavily discounted Discover Bayonne Cruise with Frank Spaziani.

Completely agree with El Miz, at least in my brief glancing over of his comment (so maybe I don't, who knows, going on blogs is a quick distraction from work).

I don't get all the people riding the 5th Year Transfers Bandwagon. Sure, it's nice to have someone fill a need for a year, but relying on them for skill positions is crazy talk.

A line, especially offense, needs to come together as a unit. There will always be change, but having as much consistency as possible is key to success.

With a QB and Wide Receivers, the same is true. They need to build a relationship and understanding of each other, as well as a trust. Having a new QB every year won't do that.

I do think you have a little more turnover on Defense, as long as players come from a similar scheme, but there is still a lot of complexities with each playbook and knowing who will be where. The best way to improve as a team is to have a whole team working together as long as possible, and not just in practice, but in games.

Heck, all of this will just lead to a constant "rebuilding mode" and never any great progress.

I have to disagree. Especially at the O-Line for next seasopn, I think it is imperative to bring in 5th year transfers. The line next season will be largely inexperienced. Bringing in veteran 5th year lineman could provide important stability and experience that could really raise the whole line's talent level.

If there is an opportunity to bring in 5th year guys to help on the O-line I think you have to take it. At the other positions I don't see much of a need to fill gaps. Maybe at WR and in that case maybe only one. And if Braxton Miller decides to transfer, well you do everything you can to bring him to BC.

Is there some specific reason people think Miller might seriously consider BC? Because Daz knows Urban?? -- not a very good reason.

I have seen press accounts that interested teams include

LSUOregonOklahomaMichiganhalf the SEC.

For Miller, the model will be Russell Wilson and Wisconsin, not Murphy and BC.

Wisconsin was a very good team and Wilson shined there... and, importantly, Wilson was spot-lighted by the national sports press. That enhanced his draft stock quite a bit.

I do not see BC doing as much for Miller as the national powers would do for Miller. The national powers offer much better OLs, much, much better WRs, way superior media/press, better facilities -- just the way it is

NO, honestly, I don't think Braxton Miller will come to BC. He is more interested in going to a factory, as you say. But I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility the way you seem to suggest.

Murphy's success would show a lot of QBs what could be accomplished here. The Meyer-Daz connection doesn't hurt. If Miller announces he's leaving, BC should try everything in their power to get him. Just because we don't think he's going to come here, doesn't mean you shouldn't try.

Your logic is exactly what I'm saying, you are just extracting a contrary point out of it, which I think is the heart of this discussion and flawed (no offense).

You say you want 5th years (on the OL) because whomever is projected to start next year doesn't have a lot of experience. It is a fact that we don't rotate the OL a lot during games. So, if we bring in 5th years, we put a band-aid on the OL for a year. Then what? Bill publishes this post again a year from now and you suggest getting more 5th years, because the guys that didn't get exposure this year still don't have experience. How does that work?

That's just not how you build a successful team. We need guys that are going to start for a couple of seasons, at the very least. Grow together. Learn together. Gel. Consistency in the players will breed success or reveal weaknesses that the coaches can then correct. Band aids wear out over time.

We saw it time and time again this year, or heard it, practice is one thing, but in game is a whole other experience. Practicing throwing plays didn't translate to late game execution because it was the only time we ever ran them. The same goes with any other player or position. Unless these kids get exposure to the game regularly, we're never going to experience consistency or growth...

I think your missing the heart of my argument for 5th year guys on the O-Line. I'm not advocating that we go out and try to get 5 fifth year guys to staff the O-Line. That's not realistic and like you say, will ultimately leave us in a bad spot when we have to do it again next year.

Instead, we need to get 1 or 2 5th year guys who can come in with some valuable experience and mentor and teach the younger guys. The majority of the line is then made up of guys who will be starting for several years. Next year, when the 5th years are gone, you are now only plugging two holes with guys that don't have much experience rather than five like we will have to this year if we don't get any transfers.

I understand the argument for wanting to get guys as much experience as possible because they will be the starters, but with that line of thinking we should have ignored Tyler Murphy all together and given Wade the ball from day one. Instead, we brought in a 5th year guy who I'm sure mentored, taught, and coached up Wade so that he will be better prepared for next year.